Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord

13468940

Comments

  • shadow5599shadow5599 Posts: 101
    And ask me. I think back to last year at this time...car shopping. Let's see...there was the 2003 Accord with 80,000kms with a strange noise from the engine and NOT a good test drive experience but yet the overly arrogant Honda salesman wanted over $20k for that car and others like it! No full airbag set up, not near the power of the Malibu, many more km's, older model, virtually no warranty left.
    So yes I picked very wisely, the top rated 05 Malibu. I wont go over the price and details again, you can look back at my posts for that.

    I did lots of research, lots of test drives and in the end, the Malibu was the true quality value over the rest, its why I chose it! I'm not a kid buying their 1st car here. I've done it alot in the past 30 and have always come out the winner but yet no Hondas or Toyotas ever purchased by me. Hmmm...how can this be? I must be an idiot, broke, always driving a broken down North American car or paying to get it out of the shop. Not so. Not even close.

    Most people buy with a price in mind, they're on a budget.
    I happened to get more than I set out to with less money. No amount of blabbering on about other cars can change that fact. I saved money, got a great car and came in under budget. Couldnt have done that buying a comparable import, simple as that. And believe me, I tried!

    I've come to trust my own judgement and it's been proven to be very reliable. Now I'll drive the 05 Malibu for the next 5-10 years and prove once again that MY cost of ownership will beat most anyone's.

    A FYI....anyone interested in one of the safest cars in this class, the Malibu is doing even better for 07.
    Now number 3. Above Honda and Toyota and only beat out by an Audi and a Subaru.
    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    That raises a question that I don't know the answer to...does the
    Malibu still come with the 2.2L Ecotec from the Cobalt? Or is the
    3.5L standard now?

    Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that if
    anything, it is the 2.2L Ecotec that is the true standard in the 2006+
    sedans. One needs to go rather high in the sedan lineup in order to
    get the 3.5L engine (that was my impression from studying the 2006
    lineup.) In the year 2005, 2.2L Ecotec was only offered in the very
    base sedan; the LS and LT levels had the 3.5L engine.

    The 2.2L Ecotec is a marvelous engine -- you probably know that apart
    from the Cobalt, Malibu and G6 (?) it also goes into Saab -- and GM's
    European models, such Opel (if things haven't changed by now).

    People are claiming to be able to get up to 40 mpg in a 2.2L Ecotec
    under good conditions. My personal peak on a 2700-miles trip through
    rains and mountains was 36.3 mpg, at the average speed 59 mph
    (measured by the distance / fuel purchased).
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I've come to trust my own judgement and it's been proven to be very reliable. Now I'll drive the 05 Malibu for the next 5-10 years and prove once again that MY cost of ownership will beat most anyone's.

    Tell me, what lottery numbers should I pick? ;)
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    Just buy the most expensive ticket, recommended by a Lottery Report --
    and you are going to win with any number! :-)
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Posts: 101
    Tell me, what lottery numbers should I pick?

    Haha...if I could do that I'd be posting on the Lamborghini forum...from my private island....while my harem girls fan me and feed me grapes.....and ;)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Now I'll drive the 05 Malibu for the next 5-10 years and prove once again that MY cost of ownership will beat most anyone's

    My brother bought a truck for $800, and he is still driving it today (8 years later). $100 dollars per year, how's that for true cost to own. Low true cost to own is easy, if you buy used (a car someone else picked out, and drove around for a couple of years). If you want a car you choose yourself (new) it will cost more, but I would rather not drive someone else's hand-me-down car.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Since you mentioned the 03 Accord, I did a little checking. Seems that if you want to get the same horse power (240) as my Accord 3.0L you have to get the 3.9L engine in the Malibu. This engine is almost a full liter larger, not nearly as smooth or quiet, it's also heavier, and less fuel efficient. Wow, what a bargain. What does the SS stand for? Super Slug.
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    Since you did a comparison, I did some, too:

    --------------------
    Honda 2003 LX V6 Coupe:
    Engine: 3.0L 240 hp V6
    Horsepower: 240 @ 6250 RPM
    Torque (lb-ft): 212 @ 5000 RPM
    Economy: N/A
    --------------------
    2007 Chevrolet Malibu: LT2 or LTZ
    Engine: 3.5L 217 hp V6
    Horsepower: 217 @ 5800
    Torque (lb-ft): 217 @ 4000
    Economy: 22 / 32 mpg
    --------------------

    Do you think that the torque 217 @ 4000 RPM makes a weaker engine than
    the one that has it at 212 @ 5000 RPM? Is Malibu's fuel economy
    listed above not good enough?

    SS stands for Super Sport if you happen not to know. Hurling insults
    doesn't make your point any stronger, IMHO.

    Thanks.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Why did you pick a 5 year old V6 Accord to compare with the Latest Malibu Sedan? Your engine info is a little skewed since you picked the Accord before the horsepower bump.

    He didn't mention the 3.5L, he was comparing power in the 3.9L vs. the 3.0L in the Accord. What economy does the 3.9L get in the Malibu SS?
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Do you think that the torque 217 4000 RPM makes a weaker engine than
    the one that has it at 212 5000 RPM?


    When it comes to performance, YES, horse power matters most. The smaller 3.0L Accord engine is smoother, quieter, and more powerful than the Malibu's 3.5L engine. Since these cars are only rated to haul 1,000 pounds, your extra 5 pounds of torque is wasted.
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    Why did you pick a 5 year old V6 Accord to compare with the Latest
    Malibu Sedan?


    Only because I think elroy5 was originally used his 2003 Accord for
    comparison. No?

    He didn't mention the 3.5L, he was comparing power in the 3.9L vs. the
    3.0L in the Accord.


    I noticed. I was asking his opinion on M-3.5L vs A-3.0L. Could not
    ask?

    What economy does the 3.9L get in the Malibu SS?

    Look it up if you are curious.
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    When it comes to performance, YES, horse power matters most...

    OK, the point is taken. Just was wondering what you thought about
    Malibu's 3.5L engine.

    What do you think about Malibu/3.5L's fuel economy, in comparison to
    your Accord/3.0L? Are they comparable?
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    I just found your flaw...I have a 4-cylinder Accord, and never said the mileage in a Cobalt was better than the mileage in a V6 Accord, just Accord. The 4-cylinder Honda is even rated higher in the EPA tests than the Cobalt. I would expect the 145 hp Cobalt to have much better economy than the 244 hp Accord V6...

    was that addressed to me ? I can't recall talking about Cobalt's mileage at all.
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    Ok :) so the outcome of such discussion would be volatile like the stock market :)
    If some manufacurer makes a breakthrough, does it negate the the history of the close competition of the prior years ?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If you go back to post number 95 (one you made, I was talking about a Cobalt, but I think you thought I meant a Malibu. It isn't a big deal :)

    After reading it now, I can see how it got mixed up.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    No, it surely doesn't, but I can almost guarantee that nobody will want to be talking about the old Malibu when the new one comes out, since it will only be on pre-owned lots and in driveways already. People will have generally reached a conclusion about the car already. I didn't mean to imply we can't talk about it, because that's not my place to say!
  • If anyone here is considering buying the Cobalt, I would suggest considering the Malibu instead. For about the same gas mileage, you get a bigger, more comfortable car. If you can afford the difference in price, go for it. You can find lease turnins with 10K miles or so for a good bargain. In the Richmond, VA area, Saturn of Richmond has a 2004 Malibe 4 cyl. for the asking price of $11,995. As far as the imports are concerned, I haven't had any problem with GM (knocks on wood) and have owned GMs since 1982.
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    If you go back to post number 95 (one you made, I was talking about a Cobalt, but I think you thought I meant a Malibu. It isn't a big deal

    ok, got it :)
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    If anyone here is considering buying the Cobalt...

    wow, that's weird. i just checked - Cobalts (with auto) mileage is the same as the 4 cyl Malibu. even worse on the highway. what's up with that, it's the same engine, right ?
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    What do you think about Malibu/3.5L's fuel economy, in comparison to
    your Accord/3.0L? Are they comparable?


    I think the Malibu's 3.5L mileage is pretty good, for that size engine. Large gears in the transmission probably have something to do with that. If I was very concerned about gas mileage, I would have bought an I4 Accord. My V6 gets mileage as good as my old 4cyl. Accord did in the city, and better on the highway, so I'm happy with it. Now I have 100 more horses, with about the same mileage. Can't knock that.
13468940
Sign In or Register to comment.